A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I see two harmonious aspects to this simple and straight forward paragraph.

Before the comma, we have a militia, or military or governing force.

After the comma, we see the people of this land.

I don't think the founding fathers were calling the people the militia, though in many or even most cases, they were. I think the founding fathers were implementing a procedure where the people were to be equal with the government to keep government from becoming tyrannical.

Of course the founding fathers were calling the people the militia. We weren't fighting our battles against the British with what passed for a standing army and winning. The people of this nation, and a minority of the people of this nation at that, used guerrilla warfare against the British and won because they were willing to shoot and run away to live to fight another day.

Our tactics were a lot like the Taliban in Afghanistan, except no Apaches, JDAM's, or .50 caliber machine guns. QRF was called cavalry- and they actually rode horses. The Taliban have been keeping our military busy for more than 10 years now. Must be something to hit and run tactics.

The Continental Army wasn't an army to speak of in comparison to the British Army. We didn't win through force of arms, just better tactics.

The Continental Army wasn't an army to speak of in comparison to the British Army. We didn't win through force of arms, just better tactics.

Attrition played a big part too. The Brits were fighting France at the time, as well as trying to keep a lid on the rest of the Empire. They were stretched way too thin and were pretty much out of money. Sound familiar?

__________________Never argue with an idiot in public. People passing by won't know which one of you is the idiot.

Attrition played a big part too. The Brits were fighting France at the time, as well as trying to keep a lid on the rest of the Empire. They were stretched way too thin and were pretty much out of money. Sound familiar?

To me it means there is a power balance (at least an attempt at one) between the people and their government. Other than the voting booth. It doesn't say anything about our right to self-defense, per Se. It doesn't have to, that's a natural law for most of us.

I see my right to do whatever I want with my guns as long as it doesn't harm anyone or put them in danger.

__________________
I'm gonna stop you right there, you just said an AR-15 is a high-powered rifle. It is obvious you don't know anything about guns and I shall ignore anything you say from this point on.

To truly grasp the meaning of the 2a and the constitution as a whole, one must look further than the words and examine the character of the men that wrote them. For the most part it is a simple document to read and understand. The men who wrote it on the other hand were not simple men just jotting down some words, they were extraordinary. Reading the words is easy but to understand why they were written and to realize the passion behind the words requires knowing our history. If we are going to win the long term battle of preserving our rights then we must start teaching our children American history again. They need to know and understand the massive sacrifices that were made to ensure and protect their rights and freedoms.

It is a decent attempt to spell out the natural born right of every human to an armed self-defense. I don't see where it limits what it recognizes as things we can defend against or things we can defend with.